Journal of Sustainable Development; Vol. 11, No.

3; 2018
ISSN 1913-9063 E-ISSN 1913-9071
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

An Analysis of Long-Term Forest Management Plans of Forest

Management Units in Sumatra, Indonesia
Masahiko Ota1
1
Kyushu Institute of Technology, Japan
Correspondence: Masahiko Ota, Kyushu Institute of Technology, Japan. E-mail: ota@ltc.kyutech.ac.jp

Received: February 5, 2018 Accepted: March 20, 2018 Online Published: May 30, 2018
doi:10.5539/jsd.v11n3p96 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v11n3p96

Abstract
Indonesia has been developing Forest Management Units (FMUs) as on-site forest managers that undertake
actual forest management activities at the field level. Previous studies have identified a critical lack of various
resources, particularly human and financial, in FMU development, and yet the types of forest management
activities and official planning procedures are less frequently reported. The present study examines forestry
planning aspects of the FMU policy and forest management activities planned by FMUs to fill this information
gap. The author analyzed relevant laws and regulations and the long-term forest management plans of 22 FMUs
in Sumatra. For the latter, the author explored basic characteristics of FMUs, quantitatively summarized planned
activities focusing on four aspects of forest management (i.e., utilization, conservation, empowerment of local
people, and supervision of concession holders), and qualitatively assessed the levels of concreteness of plan
descriptions related to the above-mentioned four aspects. The FMUs listed various kinds of activities in their
long-term plans, particularly those related to utilization and conservation. However, a large number of the
sample FMUs simply listed or described what they would like to do, or what FMUs are supposed to do, with
little concrete detail or deliberation of feasibility. The results of the study can be attributable to a lack of focus on
policy formulation, as well as the vulnerability and unpredictability of FMUs themselves. Qualitative
enhancement and quantitative increase of human resources and policy options to reduce unpredictability and
uncertainty in financial and institutional dimensions are desirable to promote substantive planning for FMUs.
Keywords: forestry planning, forest management activities, tropical forest, governance
1. Introduction
Forest sector reform is ongoing in many tropical countries. Given the context that tropical forests were mostly
nationalized during the colonial period, and that local people’s access to forests had been limited, reform
typically has typically involved decentralization, devolution, community-based, or participatory approaches
(Springate-Baginski & Blaikie, 2007). Tenure issues are often associated with the participatory processes
(Sunderlin et al., 2008; Bluffstone & Robinson, 2014). Capacity development of forest administration is another
aspect of forest sector reform; donor agencies may carry out capacity-building projects for forest officers
(Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit [GIZ], 2011; The Center for People and Forests [RECOFTC],
2016). Lastly, apart from utilizing existing organizations, governments may develop new kinds of organizations
in order to make forest management effective or substantive.
Indonesia has been at the forefront of tropical deforestation and forest degradation issues (Margono et al., 2014).
There is a common understanding that tropical rain forests in Indonesia’s outer islands (e.g., Sumatra,
Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Papua, and others) have not been managed properly, particularly due to unclear property
rights arrangements and the absence of substantive forest management institutions (Ministry of Forestry [MoF],
2011). Provincial or district forestry services had been operating prior to the implementation of the Forest
Management Unit policy, and yet they were not organizations that had the capacity to undertake actual forestry
management or planning (Ngakan et al., 2005). Unsustainable behaviors, such as the companies holding logging
or industrial timber plantation concessions, were common (Hurst, 1991; Limberg et al., 2007).
Indonesia’s Forest Management Unit (FMU, or KPH in Indonesian) policy is a form of forest sector reform.
FMUs are a new kind of organization for the management of such state forests in Indonesia’s outer islands (Ota,
2015). The FMU policy has been one of the most prominent initiatives introduced in Indonesia’s forest sector
(Ministry of Environment and Forestry [MoEF], 2015). As of December 2017, a total of 430 FMUs have been

96
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 3; 2018

organized (MoEF, 2017). The FMUs are categorized into the areas of Production, Protection, and Conservation
in accordance with the functionary categories of Indonesia’s state forests. Of the 430, 288 are Production and
142 are Protection FMUs. No Conservation FMUs, which are to be organized for protected areas, have yet been
established.
FMUs are expected to be on-site forest managers that undertake actual forest management activities at the field
level, whereas existing provincial or district forestry services are in charge of administration; they co-exist (Ota,
2015). FMUs develop a basic institutional infrastructure for forest management; e.g., demarcated boundaries,
inventory, maps, blocks or compartments. They also coordinate or supervise stakeholders involved in their
management areas, including local people and concession-holding companies. They formulate long-term and
short-term forest management plans for the activities of the next 10 years and one year, respectively.
However, a critical lack of various resources, particularly human and financial, has been identified both by
evaluation reports (MoF, 2011; MoEF, 2014; Setyarso, 2016) and scholarly articles (Bae et al., 2014; Ota, 2015;
Kim et al., 2016; Fisher et al., 2017). In addition, unclear and inadequate institutional provisions and authority
related to what FMUs can do, including monitoring and supervision of concession-holding companies, is also
reported as an implementation constraint (Ota, 2015). In addition to the analysis of implementation, analysis has
also been conducted of the power struggles between central and local governments over control of state forests
through the FMU policy (i.e., “recentralization”) by the central government (Sahide et al., 2016a; 2016b).
Previous studies related to FMUs reveal some of the dilemmas of new organizations in the tropical forest sector;
i.e., the organizations have to do something, but every resource is scarce and institutional provisions are unclear
with conflicting stakeholder interests. Various constraints on implementation, such as material, human,
informational and financial resources and technological and normative constraints (Mendes, 2006), are evident.
The present study aims to provide information on the forestry planning aspects of FMU policy and actual forest
management activities planned by FMUs. In the previous literature, despite the indication of various challenges
related to FMU development, the types of forest management activities that FMUs are actually trying to conduct
are less frequently reported. In addition, official planning procedures in FMU policy are also less well known.
Clarification of what FMUs are actually trying to do in their management areas would be valuable information to
consider as future FMU policies are developed.
2. Methods
2.1 Materials
The present study has a two-tiered analytical structure, an institutional analysis of the FMU planning system and
an analysis of the activities planned by FMUs.
Regarding the first point, FMU-related regulations and information books are available online at MoEF (2017).
The author extracted information from this website. In addition, there are “informal” aspects of planning that
may not be clearly articulated in the official documents. The author visited the Ministry of Environment and
Forestry in Jakarta in August 2015 and August 2016, and in Lampung province in February 2013 and West
Sumatra province in November 2016, both in Sumatra. The author obtained supplementary information about
such “informal” aspects through interviews with forestry officials.
For the second point, the author examines ten-year, long-term forest management plans, which every FMU is
required to formulate, in order to understand the activities intended for FMU management areas. This is because
an analysis of formalized plans can convincingly elucidate how FMUs expect to manage forests over the coming
years.
The author draws on the long-term forest management plans prepared by 22 FMUs located in Sumatra. The
geographical distribution of the 22 FMUs is presented in Figure 1: eight in Lampung, four in West Sumatra and
South Sumatra, two in Riau, and one each in North Sumatra, Jambi, Bengkulu, and Bangka-Belitung provinces.
The author obtained the data from the then Directorate-in-charge of FMUs in the Ministry of Environment and
Forestry in August 2015; these were all the long-term forest management plans authorized and available at that
time.

97
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 3; 2018

Figure 1. Geographical distribution of the analyzed 22 FMUs in Sumatra, Indonesia; numbers indicate the
numbers of analyzed FMUs located in each province

The present study strategically focuses on Sumatra. Indonesia is a diverse country, and situations of forest
management also vary across islands and regions. “Outer islands” of Indonesia, Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi,
and Papua, are mostly tropical rain forest regions and have been subject to unsustainable exploitation and
development pressure (Hurst, 1991; Damayanti & Prasetyo, 2015; Ota, 2015). Among others, Sumatra has been
at the forefront of ecological and social problems related to large-scale concession for timber logging, industrial
plantations, and oil palm plantations and related to unauthorized forestland cultivation by local people. One of
the FMU objectives is to properly and sustainably manage such forests with the extensive presence of
concessions and conventional local use, and therefore the author focuses on Sumatra.
2.2 Analytical Framework
For the first point, the author reviews the relevant laws and regulations and summarizes the planning institution
related to FMUs. Information from the interviews with officials is also utilized.
Regarding the second point, the author firstly summarizes the basic characteristics of the 22 FMUs. As shown in
the results, long-term forest management plans are to contain the chapters listed in Table 1. Here, the information
in the chapter “(II) Description of the area” is consulted. This is to confirm the geographic and socio-institutional
situations in which these FMUs operate, particularly in reference to concessions and conventional agricultural
use (encroachment) by local people inside the FMU management areas.

98
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 3; 2018

Table 1. The chapters in a long-term forest management plan and the sub-chapters of the chapter (V) Activity
plan, specified in the technical guidelines from the Ministry of Forestry (P.5/VII-WP3H/2012)
Chapters Sub-chapters in the chapter (V) Activity plan
I. Introduction a. Periodic inventory of management areas and
arrangements for forests (penataan hutan),
II. Description of the area b. Forest use in concession-free areas (wilayah tertentu)
III. Vision and mission c. Empowerment of people
IV. Analysis and projection d. Development and control of concession-covered or
utilization-permit-covered areas
V. Activity plan e. Rehabilitation of management areas outside
concessions
VI. Development, supervision, f. Development and control of the implementation of
and control rehabilitation and reclamation in concession-covered or
utilization-permit-covered areas
VII. Monitoring, evaluation, g. Implementation of forest protection and nature
and reporting conservation
VIII. Conclusion h. Implementation of coordination of synchronization
among concession holders
i. Coordination and synchronization with agencies and
stakeholders
j. Preparation and improvement of the capacity of human
resources
k. Preparation of finances
l. Development of databases
m. Rationalization of management area
n. Review of management plans (at least once in five
years)
o. Development of investment
(Actual contents of long-term forest management plans do not necessarily match this table precisely)

Second, activities planned for the next 10 years are quantitatively summarized. Activities planned for the next 10
years are to be documented in the chapter “(V) Activity plan” (Table 1). The author strategically focuses on four
aspects of forest management, i.e., utilization, conservation, empowerment of local people, and supervision of
concession holders. The former two represent part of the basics of forestry operations in general terms. The latter
two are related to coordination with stakeholders; outside of the government sector, concession holders and local
people are the two most important stakeholders in Indonesia’s forest governance (Ota, 2015). The author reviews
the sub-chapters corresponding to each issue in the chapter “(V) Activity plan” (Table 2), determines the major
kinds of activities presented there, and identifies the number of FMUs that fit into each kind of activity.

Table 2. Analytical focus and the corresponding sub-chapters in the chapter “(V) Activity plan” shown in Table 1
Corresponding sub-chapters in the chapter “(V) Activity
Broad category Analytical focus
plan”
Utilization b. Forest use in concession-free areas
Basic forestry
g. Implementation of forest protection and nature
operations Conservation
conservation
Empowerment of local
Coordination c. Empowerment of people
people
with
Supervision of d. Development and control of concession-covered or
stakeholders
concession holders utilization-permit-covered areas

However, quantitative counting alone may not provide insights into the concreteness of each activity plan; that is,

99
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 3; 2018

formulators may simply list what they would like to do or what FMUs are supposed to do, without taking actual
local situations or feasibility into consideration. Hence, and third, expressions related to planned activities in the
sub-chapters in Table 2 are qualitatively assessed. The author applies the concept of rubrics. A rubric is “a
scoring tool that lays out the specific expectations for an assignment” (Stevens & Levi, 2013), and it is often
used for assessing academic performances. Rubrics generally set three- to five-scale levels of performance, and
explicitly describe the requirements for achieving each level. In the present study, performance includes the
levels of concreteness of descriptions. The author developed a concise and general-purpose three-point scale
assessment matrix to assess the levels of concreteness of plan descriptions (Table 3). Using this matrix, the
author assesses each of the four sub-chapters listed in Table 2.

Table 3. Assessment matrix for levels of concreteness of plan descriptions developed by the author
Level Conditions
Level 1 Simply listing or describing what they would like to do, or what FMUs are supposed to
do, with few concrete plans or methods
Level 2 Explaining the activities and their significance, but expressions are general and lack
local information or concreteness
Level 3 Describing concrete plans and methods for each activity, taking their local situations
into consideration

The author recognizes that forest management activities may be implemented even though plan descriptions are
not very concrete, and vice versa, being affected by human, budgetary, and other resource availability.
Qualitative assessments using rubrics offer a kind of supplementary information; the author’s intension is to
prevent the analyses from being superficial by combining qualitative and quantitative methods.
3. Results
3.1 The FMU Planning System
FMU staff formulates ten-year long-term and annual short-term forest management plans, reflecting actualities
of each management area (P.6/Menhut-II/2009). The then Directorate General of Planning at the Ministry of
Forestry provided technical guidelines for formulating these plans in 2012 (No P.5/VII-WP3H/2012). These
guidelines establish a working team, consisting of the staff of FMUs, regional forestry services, technical
implementation units of the Ministry of Forestry, and experts as necessary. It is stipulated to include ecological,
economic, and social information.
However, although it is stated that socio-economic information should be included in long-term plans through
local data collection processes, instructions for involving local people in planning or decision-making processes
are not explicitly provided. From the author’s interviews in Lampung in 2013 and West Sumatra in 2016, it was
inferred that long-term plans had not necessarily been formulated with substantive consultation with local
people.
Long-term forest management plans are supposed to contain the chapters shown in Table 1. In addition to these,
appendices such as maps are also to be attached. Activities planned for the next 10 years are to be documented in
the chapter “(V) Activity plan,” as shown in Table 1, along with related appendices. It is understood that the
ministry specifies the basic contents, and the uniqueness of each FMU will be reflected at the concrete
activity-level.
From 2013 to 2015, it was stipulated that long-term plans would be formulated by the heads of FMUs. Plans that
were already developed for the regional forestry service were submitted to the ministry, as well as to one of its
regional units (PUSDAL), for endorsement (P.46/Menhut-II/2013). Beginning in 2015, it was stipulated that
long-term plans would be formulated by provincial governments, with the heads of FMUs being assigned to this
work. Plans were then to be endorsed by the Directorate-Generals in charge of production and protection of
FMUs (P.64 Menlhk-setjen 2015). This would be in line with Sahide et al.’s (2016a) indication that
developments of FMU institutions have been recentralized.
With regard to budgetary aspects of operations, FMUs can utilize national, regional, and external donors’
budgets for their operations (P.20/ Menlhk-Setjen/2015). In long-term forest management plans, budgets for

100
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 3; 2018

FMU activities are presented as projected estimates.

From the author’s interviews in Jakarta and in West Sumatra in 2016, it was confirmed that FMUs request
estimated annual budgets from the ministry with short-term forest management plans. Directorates in charge at
the ministry review them and determine budgetary allocations for FMUs. From the same interviews, it was also
confirmed that most of the budgets for FMUs were coming from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry,
inferring FMUs’ high dependence on national budget schemes.
As of January 2018, in total, 129 long-term forest management plans have been authorized in Indonesia, of
which 88 are for Production FMUs and 41 are for Protection FMUs (MoEF, 2017). The percentages of
Production and Protection FMUs with authorized long-term plans are 30.5% and 28.9%, respectively.
3.2 Basic Characteristics of the 22 FMUs
Out of the 22 FMUs, 14 were Production FMUs, in which most forests are used for production purposes, and
eight were Protection FMUs, in which most forests are to remain protected. Consequently, Protection FMUs tend
to include greater mountainous or hilly areas. These 22 FMUs were all “Model FMUs”, which were established
earlier, by 2014, as advanced models of the FMU policy.
In terms of administrative levels represented, five were Provincial FMUs, which cross more than two districts
and hence are established at the provincial level, and 17 were District FMUs, which are located inside one
district and hence established at the district level (Note 1).
The management areas of FMUs were quite large. The average, minimum, and maximum management areas of
22 FMUs were 121,817ha, 5,160ha, and 513,276ha, respectively. Little systematic information on personnel
resources was available from the plans. In one example, with an area of around 80,000ha, the current number of
personnel was 15 people (one head, three sub-heads, and 11 officials). This FMU was planning to increase the
number of personnel to 55 over the following 10 years. These facts suggest that it would be very difficult to
manage such a large area with such a limited number of personnel.
Seventeen out of 22 FMUs had concessions inside their management areas. These were the concessions that had
been implemented before FMUs were established. Surprisingly, five FMUs had more than 90% concession
coverage in their management areas. Eleven FMUs, half of 22, had more than 30% concession coverage (Figure
2). These facts suggest that FMUs were established in areas that had been covered with company concessions,
and the ratios of concession coverage are high.

6
5
4
Number 3
2
1
0

Figure 2. Number of FMUs by percentage of concession area to total FMU area (n=21: one missing value)

All 22 FMUs were subject to agricultural encroachment, either shifting cultivation in dry fields or wet paddy
cultivation. Eight out of 16 FMUs for which data of land use were available had more than 30% coverage of
agricultural encroachment (Figure 3). This suggests that FMUs were established in situations where
unauthorized local occupancy of forests was widely practiced, and the ratios of encroachment are high.

101
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 3; 2018

Number 2

Figure 3. Number of FMUs by percentage of agricultural encroachment to total FMU area (n=16: six missing
values)

The large FMU management areas suggest that the numbers of personnel are critically low. In addition, large
portions of FMU areas had been covered with concessions and encroached upon before FMUs began to operate.
These facts demonstrate that FMUs, in the first place, are difficult to operate within the existing legal and
contextual uncertainty, with critically limited human resources.
3.3 Quantitative Exploration of Activities Planned
Regarding utilization, various activities were confirmed in the sub-chapter “(2) Forest use on concession-free
areas” (Table 4). Among others, development of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) (71.4%) and timber plans
(52.4%), ecotourism (38.1%), and fish cultivation/animal breeding (38.1%) were most popular. Seven FMUs
(33.3%) referred to REDD+/carbon activities. Six FMUs (28.6%) referred to businesses (other than REDD+).
The difference between “utilization” and “development” of timber or NTFPs is that existing resources are
utilized in the former, and resources are newly grown or developed in the latter. NTFPs that the FMUs targeted
included jelutung (Dyera costulata), aren (Arenga pinnata), agarwood (Aquilaria spp.), kayu putih (Melaleuca
leucadendra), para rubber (Hevea brasiliensis), pine resin, rattan, etc. As mentioned later, not much concrete
information was available for a large portion of these activities in terms of what FMUs are actually
accomplishing.

Table 4. Kinds of activities planned for utilizing concession-free areas and numbers of FMUs that list them
(n=21: one FMU had no concession-free area)
Number
% to total
(n=21)
Utilization of timber 5 23.8
Timber or Utilization of NTFPs 7 33.3
NTFPs Development of timber plants 11 52.4
Development of NTFPs 15 71.4
Utilization of water 2 9.5
Ecosystem
Ecotourism 8 38.1
services
REDD+/utilization of carbon 7 33.3
Development of seedlings 2 9.5
Others Fish cultivation/animal husbandry or breeding 8 38.1
Hydropower generation 1 4.8
Business/investment 6 28.6
With third
Co-management with local people 5 23.8
parties
Research and Education 3 14.3

102
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 3; 2018

Various kinds of conservation-related activities were also confirmed (Table 5). Almost all (95.5%) of the FMUs
referred to routine patrol or protection, and eight FMUs (36.4%) mentioned plans for special policing operations
that would include forest police or the Indonesian army. Fifteen FMUs (68.2%) referred to prevention, control,
and identification of forest fires, and six FMUs (27.3%) mentioned that they would organize occasions for
practice in extinguishing fires. Relationships with local people were also regarded as important components,
with edification, extension and facilitation for local people (31.8%) and collaboration with local people (13.6%).
Other than these, enhancing infrastructure for forest management was also confirmed, in which 36.4%, 36.4%,
and 31.8% of the FMUs referred to delineation and identification of areas for protection, setting notice boards/
enhancing the functioning of boundaries and FMUs, and inventory of encroachment.

Table 5. Kinds of activities planned for conserving forests and numbers of FMUs that list them (n=22)
Number % to
(n=22) total
Patrolling or Routine patrol or protection 21 95.5
policing Special policing operations 8 36.4
Prevention, control, and identification of fires 15 68.2
Fire management
Practice extinguishing fires 6 27.3
Relationship with Edification, extension, and facilitation for local people 7 31.8
local people Collaboration with local people 3 13.6
Enhancing Delineation and identification of areas for protection 8 36.4
infrastructure for Setting notice boards/ enhancing the functioning of
8 36.4
forest boundaries
management Inventory of encroachment 7 31.8
Protection of high conservation value forests 10 45.5
Others
Management of human-wildlife conflict 3 13.6

With regard to empowerment of local people, 15 FMUs (68.2%) referred to developing concessions for local
people such as People’s Plantation Forests (HTR), Community Forests (HKm), or Village Forests (HD), or some
partnership-based reforestation activity not in the form of a concession (Table 6). Eleven FMUs (50.0%)
mentioned a plan to develop or enhance farmers’ groups as part of livelihood improvement. Nine FMUs (40.9%)
mentioned that they would offer some training opportunities for local people related to timber or NTFPs.

Table 6. Kinds of activities planned for empowering local people and numbers of FMUs that list them (n=22)
Number % to
(n=22) total
Development of concessions for/partnerships with local people 15 68.2
Development of farmers’ groups 11 50.0
Support for/training related to timber plants, NTFP, etc. 9 40.9
Facilitation of small-scale enterprises 2 9.1

Compared to the above-mentioned three aspects, fewer activities were described with regard to supervision of
concession holders (Table 7). Twelve out of 17 FMUs (70.6%) referred to periodic monitoring/checking of
annual work plans. Five FMUs mentioned that they would conduct advising and monitoring for specific
activities such as replanting.

103
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 3; 2018

Table 7. Kinds of activities planned for supervising concession holders and numbers of FMUs that list them
(n=17: those with concession holders)
Number % to
(n=17) total
Periodic monitoring/ checking of annual work plans 12 70.6
Advice and monitoring of specific activities 5 29.4
Reporting to other authorities 1 5.9

In summary, the plans showed a large number of activities for utilization, not only of NTFPs or timber, but also
ecosystems or carbon, and for conservation, such as patrolling or policing, fire management, relationships with
local people, or enhancing infrastructure for forest management. Local empowerment was considered to be
managed through official concessions for local people such as HTR or HKm. Interestingly, however, fewer ideas
were presented with regard to concession supervision, and the activities presented were primarily those can be
implemented without difficult negotiations with concession holders, such as monitoring of annual work plans. It
is assumed that FMUs perceive difficulties in negotiating with existing company concession holders.
3.4 Qualitative Assessments of Concreteness of Expressions
Contrary to the fair number and various kinds of planned activities, however, the levels of concreteness of plan
descriptions were low. Using the assessment metrics shown in Table 3, the numbers of FMUs assessed as Level 3
(mentioning concrete plans and methods for each activity, taking their local situations into consideration) were
just four, four, three, and one, respectively (Table 8). Around 40% to 50% of FMUs fell into Level 1 (simply
listing or describing what they would like to do or what FMUs are supposed to do, with few concrete plans or
methods), and around 30% to 45% fell into Level 2 (explaining the activities and their significance, but
expressions are general and lack local information or concreteness).

Table 8. Assessments of the levels of concreteness of plan descriptions using the matrix presented in Table 3
Sub-chapter Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Forest use in concession-free 8 9 4
areas (n=21) (38.1%) (42.9%) (19.0%)
Enforcement of forest protection 11 7 4
and nature conservation (n=22) (50.0%) (31.8%) (18.2%)
9 10 3
Empowerment of people (n=22)
(40.9%) (45.5%) (13.6%)
Development and control of
concession-covered or 9 7 1
utilization-permit-covered areas (52.9%) (41.2%) (5.9%)
(n=17)

These facts mean that 81.0%, 81.8%, 86.4%, and 94.1% of the sample FMUs lacked concrete methods related to
local contexts for utilization, conservation, local empowerment, and control of concession holders, respectively.
This fact implies that in most of these sample FMUs, plans were formulated without proper information
gathering.
Little evidence of statistical significance or tendency was found, except that the four FMUs evaluated as Level 3
in “Forest use in concession-free areas” were all in the West Sumatra province. This might be because local
university academic staff were involved in and supported the development of FMUs; one such report is Mahdi et
al. (2013). From the interviews in Lampung in 2013 and West Sumatra in 2016, there were several cases
identified in which local universities supported the formulation of long-term plans for FMUs.
Regarding the expenses for each activity, only rough estimates were presented in the long-term forest
management plans, with some notes that “the total amount and funding sources stipulated in this plan are used

104
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 3; 2018

for planning activities, and do not constitute budget documents.” Little evidence was found that the FMUs
calculated the total amount needed for their activities in terms of financial feasibility. As mentioned earlier (in
3.1), for the national budget, FMUs request estimated annual budgets from the ministry with short-term forest
management plans, and Directorates in charge at the ministry review them and determine budgetary allocations
for FMUs.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
The author acknowledges that the present analysis is geographically confined to Sumatra, and hence simple
generalization may not be appropriate. The author also acknowledges that the present study’s insights might be
only relevant to FMUs that were established at the initial phase (before August 2015, when the author obtained
the data). Nevertheless, the findings of the present study can provide useful implications for ongoing FMU
development broadly as follows.
It has been confirmed that although the FMUs refer to various activities in their long-term forest management
plans, their planning tends to lack concreteness and selection-and-concentration strategies. A large portion of the
sample FMUs simply listed or described what they would like to do or what FMUs are supposed to do.
Considering insufficient human resources and unclear budgetary sources, it is difficult to assume that FMUs will
be actually able to implement the planned activities. It is inferred that these long-term plans represent “wish lists”
in given situations and resource availability, and whether all or most activities can be implemented was not
necessarily taken into account.
The author proposes two factors that can explain the observed results. First, a lack of competencies and
manpower of FMU personnel for policy formulation shall be taken into account. Regarding qualitative aspects of
human resources, it is considered that current permanent personnel of FMUs are mostly those who were moved
from provincial or district forestry services. It is probable that not all of them have sufficient skills and
knowledge for formulating a long-term plan, taking diversity and uncertainty of the region into consideration.
With regard to quantity of human resources, although the Indonesian government has recently implemented an
internship program (Bakti Rimbawan) to dispatch university or college graduates to FMUs (MoEF, 2016),
insufficiency of human resources is evident. Even if a few competent personnel were there, it would not be
feasible to formulate a concrete plan and implement it. It would even be difficult for most FMUs to collect actual
information inside the territory through forest resource surveys and substantive consultation with local people
living there.
Second, financial vulnerability and unpredictability should be highlighted. As already explained, FMUs are
highly dependent on budget schemes from the central government. FMUs request budgets for operational and
activity costs from the ministry every year, with uncertainty about how much will be approved. Such a structure
may lead to two consequences. One is that plan formulators may not able to deliberate plans in the long run. The
other is that such a structure may give plan formulators an incentive to just list as many activities as possible to
maximize the opportunities for approval by the ministry, although proposals for each activity are not necessarily
concrete. Thus, vulnerable and unpredictable financial resources for FMUs can also explain the lack of
concreteness in planning.
To promote substantive planning for FMUs, first, qualitative enhancement and quantitative increase of human
resources are desirable. Second, policy options to reduce unpredictability and uncertainty in financial and
institutional dimensions are also needed. Both issues might have been recognized by policy makers, and are at
least partly being addressed (e.g., MoEF, 2014); the present study is supporting material, from the viewpoint of
planning and its implementation, to confirm the necessity of the above-mentioned improvements.
Acknowledgements
The present study was funded by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKEN No.16K16240). The author
acknowledges the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in Indonesia for providing data.
References
Bae, J. S., Kim, Y. S., Fisher, L., Moeliono, M., & DeShazo, J. (2014). Promises and perils of decentralized
forest governance: the case of Indonesia's Forest Management Units in Reducing Emission from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). Society & Natural Resources, 27, 1346–1354.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.945061
Bluffstone, R., & Robinson, E. J. Z. (2014). Forest tenure reform in Asia and Africa: local control for improved
livelihoods, forest management, and carbon sequestration. London: RFF Press.

105
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 3; 2018

Damayanti, E. K., & Prasetyo, L. B. (2015). Forest transition in Sumatra: driver, pressure, state, impact, and
response. Poster Presentation at the National Seminar on Biodiversity Conservation at Southern Sumatra
Sub-region, Palembang.
Fisher, L. A., Kim, Y. S., Latifah, S., & Makarom, M. (2017). Managing forest conflicts: perspectives of
Indonesia’s Forest Management Unit directors. Forests and Society, 1, 8-26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v1i1.772
Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit [GIZ]. (2011). Capacity development for REDD readiness in
pacific islands: the GIZ contribution. [Power Point slide] Retrieved December 22, 2016, from
http://www.iges.or.jp/en/archive/fc/pdf/activity_20111110/7-GIZ.pdf
Hurst, P. (1990). Rainforest politics: ecological destruction in Southeast Asia. London, New Jersey: Zed Books
Limited
Kim, Y. S., Bae, J. S., Fisher, L. A., Latifah, S., Afifi, M., Lee, S. M., & Kim, I. A. (2016). Indonesia's Forest
Management Units: effective intermediaries in REDD + implementation? Forest Policy and Economics, 62,
69-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.09.004
Limberg, G., Iwan, R., Moeliono, M., Sudana, M., & Wollenberg, E. (2007). Community-based forestry and
management planning. In P. Gunarso, T. Sety-Awati, T. C. H. Sunderland, & C. Shackleton (Eds.),
Managing forest resources in a decentralized environment: lessons learnt from the Malinau Research
Forest, East Kalimantan, Indonesia (pp. 107-127). Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.
Mahdi, A. A., Senatung, M., & Helmi. (2013, June). Developing organizational structure of Kesatuan
Pengelolaan Hutan (KPH) Limapuluh Kota District, West Sumatra, Indonesia, for sustainable forest
management. Paper presented at the 14th Global Conference of the International Association for the Study
of the Commons, Kitafuji, Japan. Abstract Retrieved from
https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/8928/MAHDI_1148.pdf?sequence=1
Margono, B. A., Potapov, P. V., Turubanova, S., Stolle, F., & Hansen, M. C. (2014). Primary forest cover loss in
Indonesia over 2000–2012. Nature Climate Change, 4, 730-735.
Mendes, A. (2006). Implementation analysis of forest programmes: some theoretical notes and an example.
Forest Policy and Economics, 8, 512-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2005.07.003
Ministry of Environment and Forests [MoEF]. (2014). Strategies for developing Forest Management Units and
structural transformations of forestry in Indonesia. Jakarta: Ministry of Environment and Forestry. (in
Indonesian)
Ministry of Environment and Forests [MoEF]. (2015). Supplements, Work Plan 2015 (Revision). Jakarta:
Ministry of Environment and Forestry. (in Indonesian)
Ministry of Environment and Forests [MoEF]. (2016). Forester Service. Retrieved December 22, 2016 from
http://bp2sdm.menlhk.go.id/loker/baktirimbawan/ Accessed 22 December 2016. (in Indonesian)
Ministry of Environment and Forests [MoEF]. (2017). System for spatial information and documentation for
Forest Management Units. Retrieved December 15, 2017, from http://kph.menlhk.go.id
Ministry of Forestry [MoF]. (2011). Forest Management Unit development: concept, legislation and
implementation. Jakarta: Ministry of Forestry.
Ngakan, P. O., Achmad, A., William, D., Lahae, K., & Tako, A. (2005). The dynamics of decentralization in the
forestry sector in South Sulawesi: the history, realities and challenges of decentralized governance. Bogor:
Center for International Forestry Research.
Ota, M. (2015). Can Forest Management Units improve the management of state forests in Indonesia’s outer
islands? Institutional analysis and case studies from Lampung province of Sumatra. International Forestry
Review, 17, 76-85. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554815814725121
Sahide, M. A. K., Maryudi, A., Supratman, S., & Giessen, L. (2016a). Is Indonesia utilising its international
partners? the driving forces behind Forest Management Units. Forest Policy and Economics, 69, 11-20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.04.002
Sahide, M. A. K., Supratman, S., Maryudi, A., Kim, Y. S., & Giessen, L. (2016b). Decentralisation policy as
recentralisation strategy: Forest Management Units and community forestry in Indonesia. International
Forestry Review, 18, 78-95. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554816818206168

106
jsd.ccsenet.org Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 11, No. 3; 2018

Setyarso, A. (2016). Development of permanent Forest Management Units and new governance for forest
concessions in Indonesia. [Power Point slides]. Retrieved December 15, 2017, from
http://www.fao.org/forestry/45317-05cfb02ddfedd2da160041c85eb4bde7d.pdf
Springate-Baginski, O., & Blaikie, P. (2007). Forests people and power: the political ecology of reform in South
Asia. London: Earthscan Publishers.
Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. (2013). Introduction to rubrics: an assessment tool to save grading time, convey
effective feedback, and promote student learning (2nd ed). Sterling: Stylus Publishing.
Sunderlin, W., Hatcher, J., & Liddle, M. (2008). From exclusion to ownership? Challenges and opportunities in
advancing forest tenure reform. Washington DC: Rights and Resource Initiative.
The Center for People and Forests [RECOFTC]. (2016). Capacity development. Retrieved December 22, 2016,
from
http://www.recoftc.org/project/asean-swiss-partnership-social-forestry-and-climate-change/basic-page/capa
city-development

Note
Note 1. The Law on Regional Government (UU 23 2014) was implemented in Indonesia beginning in October
2014. According to this law, forest management is stipulated as an issue over which provincial governments are
in charge. FMUs established at the district level are considered to be contradictory to this law, and hence the
change of status of district FMUs to provincial FMUs is currently being processed.

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

107